Who says I am an addict?
Kamran Hakim
Who says I am an addict?
Addictions are of many different kinds. Today addiction is no more an exclusive
phenomenon associated with narcotics. Beyond the boundaries of human addiction
to substances such as drugs, alcohol, nicotine, food, caffeine, etc..., we
appear to have an aptitude for developing unique forms of addiction such as
conceptual, philosophical and behavioral.
The purpose of this article is not to get into discussing the apparent forms
of addiction. Instead, I focus on the more unique modes of human addiction which
prompted me to write this article. The reader of these lines might question
the worth of the issue I have raised above, and I hope that the rest of this
article clarifies its value.
The most superficial observation of any human interaction, a casual look at
any books or magazines, or even a browse through these newsgroups strongly hint
at the existence of this unique form of human addiction. The sad part is that
we don't often take notice of it, and often times when we recognize its
symptoms, we tend to associate it with humor, laugh at it and sweep it under
the carpet of human indifference. After all it appears so harmless that it can
be ignored in the name of "Surely I have more important things, in my life, to
worry about that!". It is an addiction which has within it philosophical, as
well as conceptual and behavioral elements, that make it even harder to deal
with. Under the shadow of unimportance, indifference, and humor, this monster
keeps growing within us. In due time its evils manifest themselves in our
actions, thus, into every aspect of our collective social life. The most
horrifying aspect of this addiction, besides its invisibility, is its
communicability. I call this addiction CONVERSATIONAL LABELING.
The usage of the natural language requires us to label ourselves and others,
such as: "I am `....'.", or; "He/she is `....'. Where the blank is generally
filled with some attribute such as title, sex, nationality, color, race, etc...
Conversational labeling, like all other phenomena has found multiple usages in
man's life. I will address two of the most important uses of this phenomenon
which are relevant to this discussion: It can either be used consciously as a
TOOL for more effective communication, or, it can appear in one's conversation
indiscriminately, reflexively or automatically as a BEHAVIORAL PATTERN. While
the former is a necessity, a remedy, a bestower of understanding, and a cause
of progress, the latter is an excess, a form of disease, a source of
misunderstanding and a cause for problem.
I'd like to clarify that I am not arguing against conversational labeling when
used as a tool for communication and better understanding. Since, it is rather
obvious how it allows one to categorize, and, reduce a complex issue into
smaller, thus, more understandable elements for mental analysis.
Very ordinary statements such as: 1- I am a male. 2- I am black. 3- She is a
doctor. 4- He is rich. 5- I am Iranian. 6- He is Christian. 7- I am Republican.
8- She is thin. 9- I am tall. 10- He is ugly; etc..., are seemingly harmless
labels which identify the attributes of an individual for others. Generally a
conversational label is harmlessly used by an adult to convey some specific
information to an audience, or, to another person. However, another parallel
phenomenon takes place during the usage of these labels which does not attract
one's attention, namely the constant reaffirmation of some verifiable facts of
life, namely: I am a male; He is fat; 3- She is white; I am such and such.
These reaffirmations keep taking place unwittingly in our lives. We keep using
these labels time after time, day in and day out. As a result of an often mind-
less but constant usage of these mantras, we unwillingly develop a selective
vision. We form imaginary windows of attributes in our minds, through which we
look at ourselves and at the society in general. In fact we teach our children,
to use these labels, from early childhood, sometimes forgetting to remind them
that, these labels are nothing but dummy elements we humans use for the sole
purpose of better communication. Failing either to teach them, or exemplify
for them that they should not use these labels outside of their prescribed
boundaries. As a result, our children grow they inherit our selective vision
through the dynamic force of example we have offered to them.
As time goes by, we slowly but surely turn into addicts. With aging our
addiction roots deeper and grows stronger. Ultimately it reaches to a point
that we automatically polarize ourselves, by forming many invisible conceptual
and philosophical barriers of attributes between ourselves and others. This the
moment of execution for the "foundational" and "pivotal" concept of "oneness
of mankind" in human heart. This is when, "being a human" is no longer the
criterion, or sometimes even a criterion by which we considers one another.
This is the time when our criteria for judgment reduce to those same labels
of "race", "color", "sex", "degree of education", "religion", "political
affiliation", "degree of material wealth", "degree of thinness", etc... At
times, we tend to think of ourselves and others as being more black, doctor,
American, Muslim, fat, rich, educated, high class, etc... than human. What we
once used as a tool for communication are now transformed into criteria for
judgment. Ultimately these philosophical and conceptual barriers manifests
themselves in our attitudes as "prejudice" in various forms of "isms" such as
"racism", "sexism", "chauvinism", etc...
It is perhaps appropriate to ask: Why has conversational labeling been
identified as a form of addiction? The term ADDICTION strongly implicates a
LACK OF SELF-CONTROL. Where, this lack of self-control results in some kind
of MINDLESS and AUTOMATIC human action or reaction.
A fair examination of conversational labeling suggests that the problem and
challenge discussed above are not inherent to labeling itself, but rather in
its use or abuse. This is a characteristic similar to other forms of addiction,
where, addiction is not an inherent property associated with narcotics, alcohol
and food, but rather a function human abuse. Narcotics, alcohol and food, each
have their own specific uses in human life, and each can add to the betterment
of the quality of our lives, if our usage is regulated primarily by the primary
purpose they fulfill in our lives, and not by other secondary and tertiary
factors such as pleasure, humor, etc... Otherwise, addiction, health problems,
and social disorders come about as a result of lack in self-regulation, or
self-control. So, like an alcoholic for whom drinking has become an automatic
and mindless reflex, labeling others can potentially become manifested in our
daily activities as a mindless reflex, thus an addiction.
Moreover, like an alcoholic who does not realize that he/she has an addiction
for alcohol, one who reflexively labels others fails to recognize that he/she
has a conceptual and behavioral addiction. Unfortunately the addiction of
labeling can more easily go unnoticed, due to its abstract nature. Even if its
presence is realized, the challenges in eliminating this form of addiction
outweighs the insignificant level of harm one would associates with it. So, the
addiction keeps quietly growing in the inner corners of our beings and manifest
itself in our social existence in the forms of racial, class, ethnic, religious
and a host of other forms of prejudice.
Furthermore, as an alcoholic finds himself/herself challenged, to the limit of
ability, to control his/her tendency towards substance abuse, there is a great
challenge associated with controlling one's tendency to label other human
beings.
What is the moral of the story? Are we blowing the issue out of proportion?
I realize that this is an issue which people tend to consider personal and they
might dislike to discuss it in public. The goal is not to find faults with
others, but, identify a human shortcoming which has afflicted everyone to
various degrees. I hope that we all find enough courage in ourselves to face
this issue and seek an answer for it. I'd like to answer the two questions I
have raised above with two other questions, and solicit your views about this
issue:
Isn't the human ability to knowingly examine, define, react, and control,
through the agency of our mental faculty, the distinguishing factor between
human beings and animals? Why is it that we are so cognizant of applying our
ability to examine, define, react and control to every aspect of human
existence (i.e. research, manufacturing, science, arts), yet, we are lamentably
failing to apply the same principals to our own lives?
Warm regards,
Kamran Hakim